Although we realize it was wrong for us to let our dog stray on Dec. 15, this is not a case of a dog roaming far and wide from home.
Bo and our neighbors’, the Gerbers’, dog frequently played together in the field between our house and mostly at our house. We very seldom let Bo out without us being out there and therefore, our dogs, the Gerbers’ dog included, often played at our house. Our property borders Gerbers’ house, literally with a barbed wire fence dividing us. The Gerbers’ claim they had 45 chickens killed between October and December, yet never once confronted us. In the police report they claim to have only seen Bo once, yet now they are suggesting Bo has killed all their chickens.
Bo is chained up 90 percent of the time and this started in October. The other 10 percent of the time he was not chained up was when we were home. The Gerbers’ dog was on our property almost daily playing with our dogs and we always treated their dog kindly. Since the incident, they no longer are letting their dog roam, and they also claim to no longer have chickens being lost, maybe this is a coincidence?
The Gerbers have never witnessed Bo killing or harassing chickens and claim to have only seen Bo once before the incident. They have evidently forgotten about a time when Bo jumped into Wesley’s car while we were all out walking our dogs or don’t look out their window very much. The Gerbers’ chickens are often out of their pens and on our property, and Bo has never bothered them. We have never seen any indication Bo has killed any chickens. If they were concerned with something killing the chickens, it could have been many things, especially since their chicken coop is not sturdy enough to contain the chickens, let alone keep anything out.
The Gerbers legally had every right to kill Bo if he was harassing chickens. We understand that.
However, we cannot understand why they claim that once they noticed he had a tag and belonged to someone they felt the need to destroy the evidence. They did not burn him to keep other animals away, it states in the police report that they burned him to destroy the evidence. We would have gladly came and picked up Bo’s “body,” — no questions asked! Also, a dead dog does not breathe or have a pulse, as Bo clearly did.
Had our dog been shot and killed or even came home with the gunshot wounds he had, this would not be an issue. The Gerbers went above and beyond to douse him in fuel and light him on fire. They would have wanted their own dog’s body back if the situation was reversed. They may very well be sorry but still exhibited extreme negligence at the very least. Even if it was a mistake, mistakes have consequences and you must own up to what has happened.
As far as Bo being called “evil,” we are not sure where they are getting that. They supposedly have no experience with the dog and Bo is sweet to everyone and knows no stranger! Ask the Casper Star-Tribune’s staff that met him!
To see the full extent of Bo’s injuries, go to the facebook page Bo’s Cause for Abused Paws.
In conclusion, it was shocking to read the story published that was full of inaccuracies when the writer had a copy of the police report, yet still chose to use none of it for the article. It truly is sickening to read an article defending a family that found nothing wrong with burning a live dog and never did anything to try to remedy the situation.
Unfortunately, the Casper Star-Tribune chose to avoid using the facts and wrote a totally biased article and other newspapers chose to use the same biased article instead of first verifying the truth.
Shame on the newspaper for not getting their facts straight, and shame on the newspapers that chose to use this story without checking its facts first.
(Star Tribune - March 3, 2013)
Earlier:
